theory_section

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses what information is returned but does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive or read-only. Since no annotations exist to cover this, the description carries the burden but falls short of fully transparent behavioral disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's primary function and the no-argument behavior. No redundant information or filler words are present, making it well-structured and easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description provides enough context to understand what the tool does and its output fields, which is sufficient for a simple library-like tool. However, it does not mention how this fits into a larger workflow or the exact return format, though the listed fields mitigate this omission.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description implies the optional 'name' parameter via the 'Without args' clause and gives example section names, but it does not explicitly define the parameter's format, accepted values, or default behavior. With zero schema description coverage, more detail would be needed to fully compensate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns song section information, specifies the fields (bar counts, role, dynamic level, valid next sections), and explains the no-argument behavior of listing all 15 section types. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling theory tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

While the description explains behavior (listing all vs. specific section), it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like theory_search or theory_song_form. No guidance on prerequisites or contextual triggers is provided, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.